Prorok v. Winnebago County
92 N.E.3d 1053
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Charles J. Prorok worked for Winnebago County as an assistant state’s attorney from Feb. 1978 to Oct. 2007 and allegedly was not paid for 526 hours of accrued, unused vacation time when his employment ended.
- Under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Act), monetary equivalent of earned vacation is final compensation payable by the next regular payday after separation.
- In Aug. 2016 Prorok sued the County under the Wage Act seeking $30,142.43 in unpaid vacation pay (single-count complaint).
- The County moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing the claim was time-barred by the Tort Immunity Act’s 1-year limitations period for actions against local public entities.
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding the Tort Immunity Act’s 1-year limit applied because the relief sought was monetary/equitable and thus fell within the Act; Prorok appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Wage Act back-pay claim against a county is governed by the Tort Immunity Act’s 1-year limitations period or the 10-year limitations period for contract claims (735 ILCS 5/13-206). | Prorok: claim is a contractual wage claim governed by the 10-year limitations period. | County: claim seeks monetary/equitable relief and is subject to the Tort Immunity Act’s 1-year limit for suits against public entities. | The court held the Tort Immunity Act does not bar contract-based wage claims; the 10-year limitations period applies. |
| Whether the nature of the relief (monetary/equitable) controls the limitations period, or the nature of the liability controls. | Prorok: nature of liability (contract) controls; relief label (damages/equitable) is irrelevant. | County: characterization of relief as damages/equitable brings claim within Tort Immunity Act. | The court held that the gravamen (contract nonperformance) controls; wages/back pay are contractual claims outside Tort Immunity Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Guigler, 174 Ill. 2d 281 (1996) (limitations period governed by nature of liability; contract claims use section 13-206).
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Bowman, 229 Ill. 2d 461 (2008) (focus on nature of liability, not relief sought, to determine limitations).
- In re Chicago Flood Litig., 176 Ill. 2d 179 (1997) (context on Tort Immunity Act’s purpose and limits).
- Village of Bloomingdale v. CDG Enters., Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 484 (2001) (legislative intent to limit local-government liability to preserve public funds).
- McInerney v. Charter Golf, Inc., 176 Ill. 2d 482 (1997) (employment relationships as contractual in nature).
- Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2000) (back and front pay are monetary values though sometimes labeled equitable).